English Abusage That Drives You Crazy - Think Atheist2016-12-09T17:51:08Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/english-abusage-that-drives-you-crazy?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A947097&feed=yes&xn_auth=noYou have to know the rules to…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9553492011-12-04T03:20:41.377ZKaraChttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KaraConnor
<p>You have to know the rules to be effective when breaking them, I think. Coloquial language is different to a more formal, written work, as you say. If you adhered to all the rules when speaking informally, I think you'd potentially sound stilted and pedantic. Though not always :-)</p>
<p>You have to know the rules to be effective when breaking them, I think. Coloquial language is different to a more formal, written work, as you say. If you adhered to all the rules when speaking informally, I think you'd potentially sound stilted and pedantic. Though not always :-)</p> Let's make a distinction betw…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9557142011-12-04T03:14:02.222ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>Let's make a distinction between written English and conversation. I (or even you) might follow up a prior sentence with a sentence beginning with "though" in normal dialog, but we might not write a sentence like that in a term paper.</p>
<p>Let's make a distinction between written English and conversation. I (or even you) might follow up a prior sentence with a sentence beginning with "though" in normal dialog, but we might not write a sentence like that in a term paper.</p> "there're" &amp; "should've"…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9554412011-12-04T02:56:44.686ZT A Ahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TAA
<p>"there're" &amp; "should've"</p>
<p>Again, a case of <a href="http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-odd-contractions.aspx" target="_blank">suggested</a> usage rather than breaking any rules. Contractions are perfectly legal, it's just that in certain situations, they can lead to less clarity of information. :)</p>
<p></p>
<p>"there're" &amp; "should've"</p>
<p>Again, a case of <a href="http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-odd-contractions.aspx" target="_blank">suggested</a> usage rather than breaking any rules. Contractions are perfectly legal, it's just that in certain situations, they can lead to less clarity of information. :)</p>
<p></p> I looked up 'aks' in some onl…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9553452011-12-04T02:50:40.699ZJewelzhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JuliaPratt
<p>I looked up 'aks' in some online dictionaries. It appears to have been an acceptable variant until the 1600's which explains why it's still so widespread.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The incorrect x sound shows up in so many other English words though. I hear 'excape', 'asterix', 'expecially' 'expresso' and 'ex cetera' all the time by people who would probably know better if these words weren't (it would seem) mispronounced almost more often than not. In fact, I think I pronounced asterisk with an x…</p>
<p>I looked up 'aks' in some online dictionaries. It appears to have been an acceptable variant until the 1600's which explains why it's still so widespread.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The incorrect x sound shows up in so many other English words though. I hear 'excape', 'asterix', 'expecially' 'expresso' and 'ex cetera' all the time by people who would probably know better if these words weren't (it would seem) mispronounced almost more often than not. In fact, I think I pronounced asterisk with an x until I was 25 and finally saw it written. Some of these mispronunciations will probably become acceptable variants at some point, as the language continues to evolve and cultures continue to mesh.</p> ...or at least stick to error…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9553442011-12-04T02:42:25.377ZT A Ahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TAA
<p>...or at least stick to errors which are without controversy, or are simply common knowledge :)</p>
<p>...or at least stick to errors which are without controversy, or are simply common knowledge :)</p> hehe, I was just looking at t…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9553432011-12-04T02:37:32.140ZT A Ahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TAA
<p>hehe, I was just looking at that one myself :) I've just read a dozen pages from various grammarians online on this. There is simply no strong agreement on the matter. Those arguing from the British perspective seem to distinguish them by degree of formality (written vs spoken) rather than by meaning, whereas in the USA, people seem to attribute different meanings to each. As a Canadian, the British angle is more familiar to me.</p>
<p>hehe, I was just looking at that one myself :) I've just read a dozen pages from various grammarians online on this. There is simply no strong agreement on the matter. Those arguing from the British perspective seem to distinguish them by degree of formality (written vs spoken) rather than by meaning, whereas in the USA, people seem to attribute different meanings to each. As a Canadian, the British angle is more familiar to me.</p> I would never start that part…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9553422011-12-04T02:33:37.117ZT A Ahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TAA
<p>I would never start that particular sentence with though. Read <a href="http://conjugatevisits.blogspot.com/2007/11/though-and-although.html" target="_blank">this</a> :)</p>
<p>This situation just goes to say, there are situations which have obvious and agreed upon rules, but the very nature and history of the English language lends itself to argumentation even among grammarians :)</p>
<p>On topics where even grammarians argue... I try not to take sides :)</p>
<p>I would never start that particular sentence with though. Read <a href="http://conjugatevisits.blogspot.com/2007/11/though-and-although.html" target="_blank">this</a> :)</p>
<p>This situation just goes to say, there are situations which have obvious and agreed upon rules, but the very nature and history of the English language lends itself to argumentation even among grammarians :)</p>
<p>On topics where even grammarians argue... I try not to take sides :)</p> I lived in Trinidad for a whi…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9556992011-12-04T02:11:33.550ZT A Ahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TAA
<p>I lived in Trinidad for a while. I've found that 'aks' instead of 'ask' is practically the norm, as well as many other words where the 's' and 'k' sounds cohabit. It also seems to be the way in Jamaican culture and many Caribbean islands. It seems to me this particular quirk of enunciation is more of a cultural item than abuse within given cultures. Of course, many Caribbean immigrants to the USA have brought this tongue twist to the continent. It must be understood that linguistically, the…</p>
<p>I lived in Trinidad for a while. I've found that 'aks' instead of 'ask' is practically the norm, as well as many other words where the 's' and 'k' sounds cohabit. It also seems to be the way in Jamaican culture and many Caribbean islands. It seems to me this particular quirk of enunciation is more of a cultural item than abuse within given cultures. Of course, many Caribbean immigrants to the USA have brought this tongue twist to the continent. It must be understood that linguistically, the form of English spoken in the Caribbean has different influences than that spoken in the USA. Trinidad's population has long been 1/3 Indian, and Jamaica has also had a lot of Indian as well as Chinese influence. In North America and the UK, English was the native language of most all residents, whereas in the Caribbean, English was the imposed language, in a system of slave labour.</p>
<p>Another example of a cultural mispronunciation is the reversal of the letters 'l' and 'r' by a great many Asians.</p>
<p>I think it's important that when we criticise grammar we stick to criticism of speakers who really should know better, rather than tend to issues which have cultural associations/causes.</p> You're technically correct, b…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9554282011-12-04T01:55:09.170ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>You're technically correct, but in my entire 65 years I've never heard anyone say "I can take whomever is next" in any situation. So, it's probably a case where overwhelming common usage has turned the expression, grammatically wrong as it is, into a colloquial expression taken "as is." For the same reason, we're probably going to learn to live with "I can take who's next."</p>
<p>You're technically correct, but in my entire 65 years I've never heard anyone say "I can take whomever is next" in any situation. So, it's probably a case where overwhelming common usage has turned the expression, grammatically wrong as it is, into a colloquial expression taken "as is." For the same reason, we're probably going to learn to live with "I can take who's next."</p> ROFLMAO!tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-12-04:1982180:Comment:9555242011-12-04T01:52:47.900ZT A Ahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TAA
<p>ROFLMAO!</p>
<p>ROFLMAO!</p>